Michael Cook

An unknown unknown for gay marriage supporters

Michael Cook
By Michael Cook
Image

May 29, 2012 (Mercatornet) - If we are in the middle of a culture war over gay marriage, why not take advice from someone who knows about combat, former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? Long after he left the scene, people are still quoting his description of the fog of war: “[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Since gay marriage has existed only since 2001, when it was legalised in the Netherlands, the dangerous known knowns are still meagre and the dangerous known unknowns vast. As for the dangerous unknown unknowns: well, is anyone so rash as to say that they don’t exist?

How children fare probably fits into the known unknown category. Supporters of gay marriage insist that children can flourish with two parents of the same sex. There are even claims, based on tiny studies of lesbian parents, that gay parenting is superior to having a married Mom and Dad. Opponents have much more data backing up their case. A group called the American College of Pediatricians summed up the evidence recently:

“Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

However, in the unknown unknown category is where the children of homosexual men will come from. Once same-sex unions have been sanctified with the word “marriage”, some gay couples will have children. It’s understandable – marriage has always been about children.

But where from? If lesbian couples want children, all they need is a sperm donor and possibly the services of an IVF clinic – if they do not already have children from a failed relationship.

But it is vastly more complicated for gay couples. They may have children from a previous heterosexual relationship. They can foster or adopt. But some will want a child who is genetically related to them. They can provide half of what is needed, but they still need a womb – a surrogate mother.

No one has any idea how big the demand for gay surrogacy market. There are good reasons for that. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in many countries and where it is legal, it can be shameful. But we do have some idea of the supply of gay surrogacy. Thanks to the internet, surrogacy brokers are springing up all over the world – wherever there is poverty and sympathetic government regulation.

The United States has a number of surrogacy agencies, but the growth market seems to in the developing world where it is far cheaper. Click on the site AffordableSurrogates.com. It markets surrogates in Greece, Panama, and India. Click on surrogatemothers.biz for surrogate mothers from the Ukraine.

Through sites like these, babies are effectively being sold as a product. “Did you know that thousands of people are saving money by going to foreign countries to have a child through hassle-free surrogacy?” Affordable Surrogates asks its gay clients. Another site specialising in gay clients, Advocates for Surrogacy, advertises Guatemalan women who cost 70 percent less than their US counterparts.

The best-known destination for people seeking surrogate mothers is India. Light regulation there allows IVF clinics to have herds of surrogate mothers available for their overseas clients, including gay couples. It is there that the dark side of gay parenting is most evident. Exploitation of surrogate mothers in India is not an unknown unknown. It is a known known.

This was exposed in the death of a 30-year-old Indian woman with two children of her own, Premila Vaghela, earlier this month. She died in the eighth month of her pregnancy of unexplained complications after collapsing in her IVF clinic, Pulse Women’s Hospital, in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat. The doctors at Pulse quickly did an emergency caesarean. The child was given to the American woman who commissioned it.

In the quaint lingo of the Indian media, it was noted that “Premila paid the price of offering herself as surrogate with her life.” She was to have been paid about US$4,500, although the clinic generously gave her family US$18,000.

The fate of Mrs Vaghela is a stark reminder that death is one of the hazards of being a surrogate mother. Not that it seems to bother IVF doctors there much. The hard-boiled woman boss of an unrelated clinic, Dr Nayana Patel, commented:

“the contracts signed between the surrogate mother and the couple (whose baby she is carrying) does not talk of any compensation in case of death of the surrogate mother. Those who agree to become surrogates are told well in advance about the complications involved in pregnancy.”

It’s unlikely that the clients of the surrogate mothers ever read the contract to which these women – who may be illiterate – put their signature or mark. They are incredibly exploitative. The pro-forma contract displayed by the Pulse Hospital on its website is loaded in favour of the genetic parents and the hospital against the surrogate mother.

The woman has to agree to the most intrusive limitation of her lifestyle and even to accept foetal reduction (see Pulse’s video) if necessary. Since up to three embyros are transferred at a time—not international best practice—this is quite possible.

The contract also states that “the Surrogate and her Husband agree to assume all medical, financial, and psychological risks and to release, the Genetic Parents, their attorney(s), the Treating Doctor, other professionals contemplated herein and/or involved in any aspect of the surrogacy arrangement, and each said person’s agents and employees from any legal liability except professional malpractice (malfeasance or negligence).”

In short, a surviving spouse can only seek compensation if he can prove negligence on the doctor’s part. His chances of success will be vanishingly small.

In a chilling section of the contract headed “life support”, the surrogate and her husband agree that “if she is seriously injured or suffers a life‐threatening instance during her third trimester of pregnancy”, then she “will be sustained with life support equipment to protect the fetus’ viability and insure [sic] a healthy birth on the Genetic Parents’ behalf”.

Forget about altruism. Indian surrogate mothers endure these insults to their dignity for the cash. “Surrogacy has picked up majorly all over Gujarat,” notes the Times of India. “The decent money offered by couples, majority of who are NRGs [Non Resident Gujarati]and foreigners, attracts many women from poor socio-economic backgrounds.”

The local government benefits from the exploitation of these women as well. Ironically, the government English-language magazine promoting Gujarat, “The Gujarat”, currently features a promotional article on the booming surrogacy business in Anand: “Where the storks dare to fly… Bringing smiles to couples across the world via Reproductive Tourism”.

“The state has set a precedent in embracing humanist ideas by facilitating reproductive tourism which has proved to be immensely valuable. Apart from empowering the surrogates, it is bringing in a lot of revenue for the state itself, furthering its development,” writes the author.

Conditions for surrogate mothers in Guatemala or Panama or the Ukraine are unlikely to be any better.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have to face the stark fact that legalisation will mean misery for women in developing countries. Perhaps death will be rare. But it will certainly happen. Are gay couples ready to force women to have selective abortions? Are they ready to accept that some women will die bearing a child they paid for? Are they ready to accept the degradation and exploitation that are inherent in their dream of being married?

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. This article is reprinted under a Creative Commons license.

LAST CALL! Can you donate $5?

Today is the last day of our fall fundraising campaign. Can you help us reach our goal?


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, on March 7, 2014. Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Rand Paul backs use of abortion-inducing drug as ‘birth control’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

Rand Paul has said he had no objection to using the morning after pill as a form of “birth control.”

The junior U.S. senator from Kentucky and likely 2016 presidential hopeful responded to a question on the topic yesterday at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.

A woman asked, “If life starts at conception, should medicine that prevents conception like Plan B be legal?"

Paul replied, "I am not opposed to birth control, That's basically what Plan B is.”

“Plan B is taking two birth control pills in the morning and two in the evening, and I am not opposed to that,” he continued.

After the event, he seemed to tie his remarks to the Republican plan to embrace birth control on the campaign stump. "Plan B is taking birth control,” he elaborated. “I am not against birth control, and I don't know many Republicans who would be indicating that they are against birth control.”

But abundant evidence shows Plan B may work to prevent a newly conceived baby from implanting in the uterus, causing an early abortion.

As a doctor, "Rand Paul likely knows that the most likely effect of the high-dose Levonorgestrel-only contraceptive 'Plan B' is abortifacient,” Krista Thomas, communications manager of Human Life International (HLI) told LifeSiteNews. “Though it also has potential effects of thickening of the cervical mucus and prevention of ovulation, let’s face it, this drug is designed to be taken after sex, so the likelihood of these effects stopping pregnancy is very low.”

“Early abortions are its primary, and perhaps only, effect,” she said.

One of the world's leading authorities on the morning after pill – Dr. James Trussell, the director of Princeton’s Office of Population Research – has said that women must be told of the potential for abortion as part of ethical treatment. “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills]…prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium,” he wrote.

That was further confirmed by a 2014 report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute that found all forms of emergency contraception, as well as the IUD, can cause an early abortion.

Instead, Thomas said the abortion industry has muddied the waters about the impact and effect of so-called “emergency contraception,” like Plan B.

“The abortion industry giants including Planned Parenthood have done an incredible job misrepresenting what these hormonal contraceptive devices and drugs really do to unborn babies at their earliest stage, and also how destructive these are for women’s health,” she told LifeSiteNews.

Paul's comments in the early Republican primary state came just days after a poor showing in the annual Values Voters Summit straw poll, where Paul tied for fifth place with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

But Thomas told LifeSiteNews that embracing abortion-inducing drugs is wrong morally and politically.

“It would probably be a better long term strategy for those who feel threatened by the nonsensical 'war on women' charge to go on offense and ask why” the abortion lobby is so “condescending towards women and uncaring about their health.”

Millions of women, she said, “really don’t appreciate being reduced to” the single issues of abortion and contraception access, “and we are not being heard from right now.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Paul worked with the National Pro-Life Alliance to introduce the Life at Conception Act into the Senate last March. Later that month, he appeared to foresee “thousands of exceptions” to any pro-life law that would pass, a statement his office later clarified with LifeSiteNews.

He has also said that traditional marriage is not a defining issue for Republicans, and members of the GOP can “agree to disagree.”

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Cancer-stricken mother foregoes lifesaving treatment to save her unborn daughter (Video)

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image

Ashley Bridges seemed to be living a dream when she met her fiance, Jonathon, and he proposed last fall. The couple soon learned they would be having a baby. Ashley's only complaint was persistent knee pain that got worse as time went on.

Then she got the news that would change her life: At 10 weeks pregnant, she learned she had a three centimeter tumor in her femur that would require surgery and chemotherapy.

The treatment, she was told, would require an abortion.

“There’s no way I could kill a healthy baby because I’m sick,” Bridges, 24, told the Los Angeles CBS affiliate KCAL.

Doctors found the tumor grew to 10 centimeters within two months, yet Bridges refused a full course of treatment to give her baby – whom she learned was a girl – the best chance at survival. She had a knee replacement to take out the tumor, which filled four inches of her femur.

At eight months, her doctors insisted she deliver her girl and begin chemotherapy. “That’s basically when they told me that it was terminal,” she said.

Doctors gave her one year to live, news that crushed her five-year-old son, Braiden.

But her daughter, Paisley, was born safe and healthy.

The whole family helps out in their Wildomar, California, home. Jonathon, who is in the military, works nights so he can be home with the child during the day.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

“The thought that I’m not going to see her grow up is really hard,” Ashley said.

Still, she has no regrets. “Maybe I’m not supposed to be here and she is,” she added.

Ashley began aggressive treatment, lost her hair, but seems to have had some success in stopping the spread of the cancer. She said that on September 27 her doctor told her that her cancer “hasn't spread to my legs like we thought and the [tumors] in my head haven't grown and the one that was causing me to blind seems completely gone. The ones in my hips and lower spine have grown so little there really isn't a difference!!!!”

“I'm crying, I'm so happy,” she wrote. “Thank God.”

The family has a GiveForward account to help cover their expenses. Already, she has raised $32,000 – some $12,000 more than her goal. You may donate here.

Advertisement
Featured Image
I'm not afraid of being on the “wrong side of history” on gay “marriage”; I've been there before. I spent the first part of my life being told that the global triumph of Communism was “inevitable.”
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

I make no apologies for being on ‘the wrong side of history’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Among the stratagems employed by the cultural Left to discourage, dispirit, and dissuade the plurality of culturally sane Americans from opposing same-sex “marriage” is the all-encompassing insistence that the fight has already been lost. The phrase of choice is that proponents of traditional marriage are on “the wrong side of history.”

With at least 5,000 years of Western civilization normalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage, and the American experiment with redefining marriage a mere 10 years old, it certainly seems like I'm on the right side of history – the long one...the one authenticated by every society that produced human flourishing. 

But frankly, I'm not afraid of being on the “wrong side of history”; I've been there before.

I spent the first part of my life being told that the global triumph of Communism was “inevitable.”

According to Marxist apologists, the irreversible tide of Marxism was an historic and “scientific” reality. Karl Marx had devised a theory known as “Dialectical Materialism,” which claimed that all societies in history followed a predictable pattern resulting from the conflict between exploited workers (the proletariat) and their exploiters (the bourgeoisie). This interaction transformed primitive societies into feudal ones, then into capitalist nations, and ultimately, into communist utopias. The theory “proved” that mankind would evolve into the New Soviet Man.

This is the genesis of the political term “progressive” – progressives embraced policies that would “progress” society toward this evolutionary inevitability. Those who opposed socialism were branded “reactionaries” bitterly clinging to the past, who rejected modernity and wanted to “turn back the clock.” (Sound familiar?)

This historical arrogance was expressed in the 1961 Draft Platform of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which said, “[T]he epoch-making turn of mankind from capitalism to socialism, initiated by the October Revolution, is a natural result of the development of society...and it will be taken sooner or later by all peoples.”

So fervently did all Western intellectuals believe this idea that, when he exposed a Communist spy ring in 1948, Whittaker Chambers told Congress, “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side, but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.”

Who could argue? Within one generation, Communism went from a beachhead in one nation to a worldwide empire of 17 established socialist nations encompassing more than one-third of the world's population. Marxists ruled national capitals from North Korea to Nicaragua and Vietnam to Zimbabwe, with Communist armies fighting from Chile to Guatemala.

In the 1980s, Marxist insurgencies seemed destined to sweep norte through Central America to the very borders of the United States. This view seeped into popular culture through such dystopian productions as Red Dawn, Invasion USA, and Amerika, which aired just two years before the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Until the very end, Communism's victory, its crushing and obliteration of all opposition, seemed certain.

The threat posed by Communism dwarfed anything presented by abortion, redefining marriage, and any other social issue combined. Marxism did not squeeze public prayer out of schools; it formally taught atheism and socialist ideology to children, dynamited churches, and murdered anyone who publicly proclaimed the existence of a God higher than the State. It did not seek to redefine marriage but to abolish the family, with all women held in common and all children raised by the State. Its promotion of abortion led to the greatest death toll of unborn children in world history. It did not seize tax files or intercept the e-mails of its political opponents; its all-seeing totalitarian apparatus herded them into forced labor camps where death was preferable to unthinkable torture. One of its former fellow-travellers, George Orwell, described a Communist future as “a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Those condemned to live under its reign of terror prevailed only because of their determination never to give up, their firm resolution to hold the line against the Bolsheviks wherever possible, and their tenacity in keeping their faith and the truth alive amongst themselves, especially through the samizdat press.

At the core of Communism's failure was the fact that it was built on a lie that fewer and fewer people were willing to humor, even under threat of execution. The toppling and killing of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu began during one of his interminable speeches, when one woman in the crowd yelled out, “Liar!” Soon, the crowd picked up the chant and chased him from power, ultimately sending him to his eternal reward.

Still, the tactic of presenting your extremist version of reality as inevitable – and ruthlessly crushing all opposition – won much of the world for much of the Twentieth Century. No sooner were these assertions disproved than were the exact same terms and arguments transferred from the economic realm into the cultural front. Communists learned that human beings won't give up their creature comforts for a workers' paradise – but they will cling to their sexual indulgences unto the death. They saw they could use this weakness to undermine the family, the Church, and any other intermediary institution that could stop the onslaught of the mammoth State.

Thus, their mantra that cultural devolution is “inevitable.” Their message to Christians is a mockery of a hymn: “The Strife is O'er, the Battle Lost.”

They are right, in a sense; history is rushing to its predetermined conclusion. That is the eternal reign of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, thronged by His saints and angels who shall sing His endless praises forever. First, the world must pass through the dark night brought on by the Fall, the intense warfare between love and hate, and every act of cruelty, cupidity, and inhumanity preceding the Parousia.

The “progressives” are right that they are part of a grand historical drama but 180-degrees wrong about its ultimate outcome. They are progressing toward futility, destruction, and perdition.

But before Christ the King reigns, darkness must reach its apogee.

It may be that in the Left's cultural conquest of marriage, we are closer to 1917 than 1989, that a cocksure, opaque, malicious spirit is inexorably advancing rather than retreating. Those who defend the superiority of the natural family face social, economic, and (increasingly) legal censure. We have only the truth of science, human development, and children's social well-being on our side. And we must never tire of repeating it, whatever the outcome. But it is not hard to imagine that the worst is yet before us.

Where we stand in the mystery of iniquity and redemption is known only to their Master. But we may take to heart the words of the famed dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who lived to see the fall of the Gulag Archipelago that once imprisoned him: “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world.” And the words of another, greater Authority: “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”

Join us in the trenches. Make a donation to LifeSiteNews.com today (click here)

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook